Elon Musk the next Bernie madoff?

[kort677]

for the OP the article is based on a false premise, Madoff defrauded people, Musk hasn't defrauded anyone.
anything that follows is tainted by the attempt to show any sort of equivalencies.

this is like people bemoaning the fact that trump took advantage of the tax laws to lower his tax liabilities.
Elon like trump just are taking advantage of the system that is in place.

 

[techmaven]

I know on this forum it could get me evicted. I love Elon and not really sure how accurate it is but there is no denying Solarcity has received a ton of subsidies. I know, I know oil companies have as well and even more billions have gone that way. Trillions are wasted on propping up "friends of uncle" but that does not make it right for Solar City who cannot seem to make a profit as the largest solar co. in the U.S.

A more mature view of all the subsidies makes some sense, rather than this piece meal approach. Of course, when you see this fragmented view, it really signals that one group wants their own cut and trying to block someone else's cut. No one seriously believes that incentives won't exist. Matter of fact, it makes zero sense to have no incentives. It's a libertarian approach that basically says we'll destroy ourselves first, and then we'll create a better situation. But it never, ever works out that way. Why not work for a better situation without destroying ourselves? Further, our economy functions as a part of the global whole. Other countries really do not have a problem helping their companies in many different manners to succeed in the world.

Again, any article that attacks renewables incentives and doesn't bother to discuss non-renewables incentives is definitely biased. This is all before we talk about environmental issues. Just straight up incentives and subsidies of all sorts. To cry crony capitalism on one side and don't bother to mention the crony capitalism on the other sides clearly represents an effort at sowing FUD. Not to mention, we have now diluted the meaning of crony capitalism in a way that is a win for anarchist libertarians.

 

[Grendal]

The hypocrisy of these kinds of articles are what gets me. America throws vast sums of money at corporations to maintain jobs. As I am always pointing out when I am trying to show that Elon's companies are far far down the list of wasteful government spending. If you really want to find government spending then you find the companies that are the worst and focus on them.

Here is an organization that ranks and collates the data on government spending:

Home | Good Jobs First

And here is the list of corporations getting the most government subsidies:

http://www.goodjobsfirst.org/sites/default/files/docs/pdf/UncleSamsFavoriteCorporations.pdf

And the two things that are always brought up for Tesla are the ATVM loan and the EV Tax Credit. As most are aware here Tesla paid back their loan 9 years early and is the only recipient of an ATVM loan to do so. The $7500 Tax Credit was created by the Bush Administration and is open to every manufacturer and Tesla's customers are not even the highest recipients of these. I like to point out that getting to keep more of your own money instead of giving it to the government is something a conservative is usually fighting for.

SpaceX has already saved taxpayers billions over using the old school government contractors that were previously launching stuff into orbit for the government. Often times these types of articles will act as though paying SpaceX to launch something into space is a subsidy. Which is absurdly ridiculous. The math is easy and clear cut. SpaceX is the least expensive launch company on the planet.

I suppose there is a case to talk about Solar City. I can't really speak to that but as far as I am aware it is also about tax credits for customers. Maybe someone can enlighten me on how Solar City get government subsidies, if they do.

 

[Skotty]

Because the Democrats care about the environment and the American people?

I'm confused by this. Obviously they do, but it sounds like you are trying to say they don't.

Republicans care about American people too, but for the most part, they don't care about the environment. This is a massive error in judgement by the Republican party and the reason I heavily advise people to make this an issue and support only candidates who do care about the environment. Republicans need to change their position on this issue as the stakes keep going up, and up, and up, and it's going to get ugly. This issue could end the Republican party as younger Millennials come of age and start voting in higher numbers.

Finally, there are almost no tax dollars being spent on Elon Musk. That's such a backwards argument, I don't know how it survives. Tax credits are not spent tax dollars, they are saved tax dollars. ZEV credits do not involve taxes. The green energy loan was exactly that, a loan, and the government actually made money on that deal. SpaceX flying government payloads, only part of their business, is saved tax dollars, as they fly cheaper than the competition.

 

[Vitold]

Because the Democrats care about the environment and the American people? Hey, i'm not defending Republican's but this "only the other guys are crooked" mentality is how each side can keep their heads in the sand.
Of course i'm a racist, sexist, misogynist so what do I know?

Republicans complaining about solar subsidies while happily pocketing oil and agriculture subsidies (among many others) are hypocrites.

Solar employs more Americans than oil and gas combined and is growing. I'm happy to subsidize business that will hire more American workers while at the same time making us live healthier. What's not to like?

 

[Snerruc]

Republicans complaining about solar subsidies while happily pocketing oil and agriculture subsidies (among many others) are hypocrites.

Solar employs more Americans than oil and gas combined and is growing. I'm happy to subsidize business that will hire more American workers while at the same time making us live healthier. What's not to like?

Source?

 

[Vitold]

LMGTFY

 

[PeterK]

Space X will end up subsidizing TSLA if the merger goes through.
Elon Musk’s SpaceX will buy another $90 million in solar bonds from Solarcity (SCTY)

I don't consider purchase of interest-generating bonds a subsidy. SolarCity's leasing model required a lot of up-front cash to install solar systems in return for lease payments over a decade or more*. Yes they capture the 30% federal tax credits but that leaves the other 70%, plus funding the 30% until the credit can be claimed. So they issue a lot of bonds backed by the solar system assets. SpaceX has cash on hand based on the nature of the payment terms of some of their government and non-government contracts, and 4% interest in the current environment is pretty good. There is of course risk, but I think Elon and the SpaceX board understand the risk and figure it is being managed.

*Note that as solar system costs and pricing decline, consumers are more inclined to purchase or finance rather than lease systems. SolarCity's model is changing in response to the market, and recent 3Q results show that this is improving SolarCity returns - a good thing for Tesla as it seeks to acquire SolarCity.

 

[Vitold]

Same people who criticize NAFTA or complain about importing foreign oil seem to be against manufacturing solar panels or cars in America. It's either cognitive dissonance or trying to manipulate uninformed. I'm leaning towards the later (aka fake Facebook news).

 

[ecarfan]

currently an EV for the masses does not exist yet.

Chevy Bolts are in production now and will be in dealer showrooms in a few weeks. I would call that $37.5K EV one for the middle class "masses". And next year the $35K Model 3 will almost certainly offer more capability and features for even less money. Again, an EV for the "masses".

 

[kort677]

Chevy Bolts are in production now and will be in dealer showrooms in a few weeks. I would call that $37.5K EV one for the middle class "masses". And next year the $35K Model 3 will almost certainly offer more capability and features for even less money. Again, an EV for the "masses".

like I said, they do not currently exist and the introduction of the chevy and despite the massive preorders for the model 3, that is not in any way a car for all and mass acceptance. there is a long way to go until EVs are more than a blip on the map of total sales. That is not negative and in places where more evs are available they are capturing a fair share of the market but we are far from VW beetle levels of mass appeal.

 

[Chopr147]

I'm confused by this. Obviously they do, but it sounds like you are trying to say they don't.

Simple answer: Maybe i'm just getting older but I have watched the non-sense for too long. No, I do not believe the Dems care about the environment or the people.

 

[Snerruc]

Simple answer: Maybe i'm just getting older but I have watched the non-sense for too long. No, I do not believe the Dems care about the environment or the people.

+1 politicans only care about controlling people and lining their pockets. Doesn't make any difference what party they belong to.

 

[3Victoria]

EM said in today's meeting ending subsidies would sctually brnefig Tesla, but would slow adoption of EVs.

Tesla only benefits from ZEV crddits at 50 cents on the dollar because they have to sell them to willing buyers. Conversely, other companies get 200% value for them.

Also, they do not scale, so while Teska will lose the benefit of the $7500 rebate after 200,000 cars, others will continue to receive them.

Cutting all rebates and credits will leave Tesla profitable but not other companies, who depend on the breaks to pay for their cars.

 

[lolachampcar]

Two observations....

First, if memory serves me, foundations were created as a compromise between government that wanted estate taxes and the wealthy that did not. The compromise was to put the wealth in a foundation that would do charity work with the earnings for tens of years (presumably with the heirs directing the charitable efforts) after which time the principal would pass to the heirs sans tax. Fast forward to the modern take on "charitable work" and you have conservative foundations funding conservative non-profits engaged either directly or indirectly in political activity (indirectly though seats and schools of conservative thought in our universities). The conservatives see this as a natural balance to the liberal teachings in most universities. I see it as yet another perversion of the tax code.

Second, we are all voters. If we all agree that money is no longer allowed in our democracy we simply vote no money. Candidates must not take money and must take on making money in politics in all its forms illegal if elected. The change must come from the electorate which will then attract good people back to public service. This idea of waiting for a candidate to run that will "drain the swamp" is ridiculous. The power is in our hands to fix this yet we are too intellectually lazy to have the conversation. We are a country that wants someone else to fix the problems we the voters have created.

I bring the above points up for all the talk about Musk being Madoff and Rep and Dems being the same. All of it is nutrition free brain candy to keep you occupied.

 

[theslimshadyist]

This is no different than cities and states providing huge tax incentives to attract businesses to build out infrastructure to create jobs. This is nothing new folks.

 

[Skotty]

Before demonizing politicians too much, remember this. They are people, of the people, for the people. Put simply, they are us. Don't like one politician or another, that's understandable. But don't like politicians in general? Look in the mirror.

They are under a lot of pressure by corporate interests, and that is part of the problem. But I don't see how electing a corporate interest solves that problem. Trump doesn't want to drain the swamp. He wants to own it.

 

[lolachampcar]

How do you think Trump's kids feel about eliminating the estate tax?

During one passionate conversation, a guy got up into my face and was explaining how Trump not taking money was a good thing. That is nuts. If you accept and allow a system based on money then "owing" a lot of people favors moderates your behavior. Being free of those constraints is dangerous. His response was we need someone to "blow it up".

The successful approach will be eliminating money not working around it.

If you really want to blow it up in a positive way, simply refuse to rehire anyone connected with money along with banning the money moving forward. Until this is done, you will see no real change.

 

[Vitold]

Before demonizing politicians too much, remember this. They are people, of the people, for the people. Put simply, they are us. Don't like one politician or another, that's understandable. But don't like politicians in general? Look in the mirror.

They are under a lot of pressure by corporate interests, and that is part of the problem. But I don't see how electing a corporate interest solves that problem. Trump doesn't want to drain the swamp. He wants to own it.

Politicians are lawyers so they are about 1/300 of America.

I bet even DT does not know what he wants to do other than make money and be in the spotlight.

 

[Vitold]

Politicians are lawyers so they are about 1/300 of America.

Two observations....

First, if memory serves me, foundations were created as a compromise between government that wanted estate taxes and the wealthy that did not. The compromise was to put the wealth in a foundation that would do charity work with the earnings for tens of years (presumably with the heirs directing the charitable efforts) after which time the principal would pass to the heirs sans tax. Fast forward to the modern take on "charitable work" and you have conservative foundations funding conservative non-profits engaged either directly or indirectly in political activity (indirectly though seats and schools of conservative thought in our universities). The conservatives see this as a natural balance to the liberal teachings in most universities. I see it as yet another perversion of the tax code.

Second, we are all voters. If we all agree that money is no longer allowed in our democracy we simply vote no money. Candidates must not take money and must take on making money in politics in all its forms illegal if elected. The change must come from the electorate which will then attract good people back to public service. This idea of waiting for a candidate to run that will "drain the swamp" is ridiculous. The power is in our hands to fix this yet we are too intellectually lazy to have the conversation. We are a country that wants someone else to fix the problems we the voters have created.

I bring the above points up for all the talk about Musk being Madoff and Rep and Dems being the same. All of it is nutrition free brain candy to keep you occupied.

I think money is the least of the problem. Due to two party system, gerrymandering, electoral college or difficulty in recalling politicians who brake their promises- large numbers of people are powerless.

EDIT: I wonder what would presidential candidate be like to gain support of 75% of the country. Frankly, I don't think that is possible or at least impossible to predict and therefore such person would not be a 'viable' candidate. Therefore we settle for predictable lesser evil every time.